Democratic Conference

October 11, 1965
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD (D. , MONTANA) COPY
Mr. President:
It is possible, as some have contended, that Friday ' s vote was
rendered meaningless by its unanimity. Insofar as the Majority Leader is
concerned, he prefers to believe that the Senate does not deliberately engage
in meaningless gestures. On Friday, the Senate was provided with an oppor-tunity
to get off this issue of 14-B by a simple tabling motion. The Senate
chose not to put it aside . And it chose not to do so by unanimous vote .
The Majority Leader takes Friday's vote at face value . Insofar as
the Majority Leader is concerned, therefore, that vote was, in no sense,
without meaning . On the contrary, it has been immensely helpful and the
Leadership is most appreciative .
In all frankness, if the motion to table had carried on last Friday,
the Majority Leader was prepared to recommend immediately that the Senate pass
over this issue for the session . On the other hand, if the motion to table
had been defeated by a slim majority, the Senate would have remained in a
difficult predicament. The Majority Leader would have been hard-pressed to
decide whether the margin against tabling warranted an effort to invoke
cloture on a simple procedural question of whether the Senate would take up
H.R. 77.
But the vote on Friday was such as to resolve all doubts on the
matter insof ar as the Majority Leader was concerned. Indeed, when unanimity
against tabling was indicated in the early stages of the tally, the Majority
Leader drew from his pocket a cloture petition. The petition had been
prepared in advance but was unsigned because, I confess, that until that moment
I did not quite know what to do with i t . Once the vote began to be recorded,
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
- 2 -
however, it was clear what had to oe aone with it. The petition was circulated
among the members ~hile the vote was in process and, before the tally was
complete, the requisite signatures had been obtained.
It was possible, therefore, for the Majority Leader to move without
waste of time at the conclusion of the tally to give substance to the
overwhelming, indeed, unanimously indicated inclination of the Senate, as
expressed in the vote against the motion to table .
The Senate, in effect, had said -- indeed the Minority Leader did
say it -- that it did not want to leave this issue. So, in accommodation, the
Majority Leader offered the petition for cloture . He offered it, in the first
place , to make sure that he had heard correctly and, secondly, to act on the
Senate ' s indicated wish in the only procedural way which is believed practical
at this time .
The nature of the predicament and the need for a cloture motion
become clear in the light of the proceedings on the floor during the last two
weeks . Ten days is a lavish and wasteful expenditure of the Senate ' s limited
floor time on any simple procedural question. Indeed, during this session of
Congress many complex pieces of legislation have been completely disposed of in
a fraction of that time . The Voting Rights Act of 1965, for example, was both
novel and controversial; yet the motion to proceed to its consideration was
passed by the Senate in less than a minute . Similar swift treatment was given
to the procedural question of taking up the proposed Constitutional Amendments
on Reapportionment and on Presidential Inability. The same is true for
Appalachia, Poverty and Aid to Education, to name but a few. That is part of
the background for the vote which is about to be taken . Here is the rest.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
- 3 -
On October 1, ten days ago, the Majority Leader moved that the Senate
turn to consideration of H.R. 77. It was an entirely orderly and routine
procedural motion . The bill, itself, had passed the House . It had been
considered at length by the appropriate Senate Committee and reported
favorably . It had been on the Legislative Calendar for a month . What was
there to debate on the question of taking up this measure? Whether it was too
late i n the session for a major and controversial issue of this kind? Whether
the Senate should take up some other bill first? Whether the Senate should
adjourn? These, indeed, would have been legitimate matters to discuss in an
orderly fashion prior to a vote on the motion to take up H.R. 77; an hour or so
might have reasonably been consumed in the process . But these matters were not
discussed at all, except as they were mentioned by the Majority Leader on Monday.
On the contrary, a long and continuing tirade on the evils which would attend
the repeal of 14-B was launched even though the Senate had not yet decided to
consider H.R. 77.
I submit that that is not useful and pointed debate . That is an
unconscionable delay on a procedural question for the purpose of obfuscating the
issue of substance . If it is not a filibuster, it is, to say the least, a
pre-filibuster.
And so, on October 5, five days ago, the Leadership indicated its
concern to the Senate over the delay in reaching a decision on the simple
procedural question of taking up 14-B. At that time, the Senate was asked, via
the tabling motion, to give the Leadership some guidance as to its wish on the
sole question of taking up 14-B. The Majority Leader was at great pains to
point out that what was involved was in no way a test of sentiment on the issue
of 14-B itself .
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
- 4 -
Therefore) on Friday) the distinguished Minority Leader whose own
position against repeal of 14-B is no secret) urged defeat of the tabling
motion) so that the matter would not be put aside. And the Majority Leader)
whose own position in favor of repeal of 14-B is no secret) urged defeat of
the motion to table so that the matter could be moved forward in an orderly
fashion. The Senate responded magnificently to the appeal of the joint
Leadership .
In the vote which is about to be taken) the Senate will be able to
make clear that it does not toyJ as some have suggested) with the hopes of
millions of Americans who are members of the great labor unions of the nation.
The Senate can make clear thatJ regardless of how it may feel on the issue of
14-B itself) it does not make light of their sincere petition by dabbling in
parliamentary parlor games . The Senate can make clear that Labor is entitled
to a fair and decent consideration of an issue of great importance in labor­management
relations duly and properly brought before the SenateJ even as
corporations areJ even as the aged and the poverty-stricken areJ even as
immigrants are and even as racial minorities are.
The Senate can make this clearJ in the only way that it can be made
clear at the present time) in the judgment of the Majority Leader) by voting to
invoke cloture on the simple procedural motion of taking up H.R. 77.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
- 5 -
I stress again that this vote will not~ any more than the motion to
table on Friday~ bind anyone for or against repeal of 14-B. What it will do
and let there be no doubt -- is to determine whether or not the Senate means to
get down to business on the issue of 14-B itself or to pass over it. On the
basis of the performance of the past days~ the Majority Leader~ in all
frankness~ sees no other rational way at this time in which this point can be
nailed down except via the path of cloture on the single issue of whether or
not to proceed to consider H.R. 77•
So~ Mr. President~ at one o'clock~ thanks to Rule 22~ and the
cooperation of the distinguished Minority Leader on Friday~ a significant
moment of truth will have arrived for the Senate.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
United States
of America
«rongr£ssionat REcord
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 89th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
Vol. 111 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1965 No. 184
REPEAL OF SECTION 14 (b) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, AS AMENDED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question Is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANS­FIELD]
to proceed to the consideration
of H.R. 77, tJ repeal section 14(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President on
October 1, I sent the following teleg~am
to all Democratic Senators:
Active consideration of 14(b) has com­menced.
Procedural d1IDcultles anticipated.
Votes at any time. All Members should be
available henceforth for quorum calls and
votes.
Mr. President, this has been my re­quest
to all Democratic Senators. Be­cause
of extraordinary circumstances I
told two Senators who called me that in
~Y opinion, they need not return to the
c1ty on Monday, but that from then on
they should be here.
Mr. President, I am sending today a
second telegram to all Members on the
Democratic side of the aisle, urging them
to remain in the Senate or to return here
as the case may be, to cancel engage~
ments and plans, in order to be available
for quorum calls or votes, until the pres­ent
situation is clarified.
!-fr. President, the leadership has cer­tam
responsibilities for maintaining an
ord':rly legislative program during the
sess10ns of the Senate. It also has some
responsibility for bringing the session to
an orderly close. I should like, there­fore,
to set forth certain observations on
the situation which confronts the Sen­ate
with respect to 14(b). It is necessary
to do so In order to provide some under­standing
of the leadership's predicament.
Insofar as the administration Is con­c~
rn~ in this matter of 14(b), its posi­tion
1S clear. President Johnson upholds
fully the Democratic Party platform of
1964 which calls for the repeal of sec­tio~
14 (b) . He has asked the Congress
agam and agam to repeal section 14(b).
He has expressed approval of the House
passage of H.R. 77 to repeal section
14 (b) . He would like to see the Senate
act to repeal section 14(b). He stands
ready now to sign a bill for the repeal
of 14Cb> .
Senate
In short, we know where the President
stands on 14(b). We know where the
House stands. What remains to be de­termined
is where the Senate stands.
So the responsibility for what tran­spires
with respect to 14(b), at this point,
rests solely with the &mate. The Presi­dent
understands · the constitutional de­marcation
as between the responsibility
of the Senate and the responsibility of
the executive branch. He has honored
It In the past. He will honor It In this
situation.
I would hope and expect that the Sen­ate
will be equally mindful of it. I would
hope that Members will recognize and
accept fully the responsibility which that
demarcation lodges in the Senate at this
time with respect to 14(b).
Speaking for myself, let me say that
as a Senator of the United States from
Montana, which I am before all else, I
am satisfied that section 14(b) should
be repealed. The issues of 14(b) have
been thoroughly examined in the House,
In the appropriate Senate committee and
in the press. H.R. 77, as properly re­ported
by a Senate committee, has been
on the calendar for a month. I am ready
to vote for repeal. I am ready to vote for
repeal now, today, or at any time a vote
can be had.
In all frankness, I see no point or need
for a prolonged discussion of this mat­ter
on the Senate floor. But as majority
leader, I know very well that others do
not see the matter In qulte the same light.
Some, indeed, would like to talk the ques­tion
of 14(b) to death. Let us be under
no illusions as to what we are about. Call
It educational debate. Call it prolonged
discussion. Call it a filibuster. What­ever
It is called, the facts are the same.
The opposition to repeal 14(b) is such
and tl1e rules of the Senate are such, that
a final disposition of 14(b) can be de­layed
for weeks or months. It can be so
delayed unless, not a simple majority
but a preponderant majority of the Sen­ate
decides otherwise. That is the reality
and there is no point in blinking at it.
Ten-hour sessions; twelve-hour ses­sions;
twenty-four-hour sessions will not
change the reality. There are no short
cuts which will change it. There are no
procedural tricks which will change it.
Only the presence of Members and their
votes will change it.
The leadership can state flatly, there­fore,
that there w111 be no mock trial of
this question by physical endurance.
There Wlll be no pajama sessions of the
Senate. The leadership did not resort to
t~ose exercises In futility during the civil
nghts debate, the voting rights blll the.
reapp~rtionment bill, the Telstar debate,
or dunng any of a number of other con­troversies
which have come before the
Senate in recent years. It will not resort
to them on this issue.
In th~ first place the leadership will
not subJect a Senate of extraordinary
dedication such as this one has been to
that sort of meaningless ·and demeaning
ordeal, at the end of 9 months of ex­tremely
fmitful work for the benefit of
the entire Nation. In the second place
the leadership, which seeks passage of re­peal
of 14(b) as soon as It is passible w1ll
not, in that fashion, aid further the pro­ponents
of delay. For that 1n the end in
what a trial by physical ~ndurance ~ill
do.
The leadership will proceed in an or­derly
fashion in an effort to steer the
Senate out o! this predicament. As
usual, however, the leadership can only
propose; in the end It is the Senate which
w1ll dispose.
The leadership, for example, proposed
the other day when It asked the Senate
to proceed at once to the consideration o! repeal of 14(b)-a procedural propo­Sition
which Is normally concluded on the
floor of the Senate in a matter of seconds.
Some Members were prepared so to pro­ceed.
Others were not. And the leader­ship
is still waiting for the Senate to dis­pose
of this simple procedural matter.
I say that not in criticism but merely to
poln_t up the reality of the predicament.
ObVIously, it is not so simple a matter of
whether the Senate is prepared to decide
to repeal or not to repeal section 14(b)
That there is more Involved here u;
clearly Indicated by this continuing delay.
There are other currents running in the
Senate In addition to this issue. There
is the question of whether or not an­other
time would be more appropriate for
a consideration of 14(b). There Is the
question of the relative weight to be given
this Issue of 14<b) among many Issues.
And there is the question of adjourn­ment
of the 1st of two sessions of the
89th Congress.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
It 1.$ t.hrou~h t.hese and others cur­rents,
as well a.s through the funda.­ment.
al cl.a.sh of tor repeal and ag&J.nst re­peal
of 14<b> t.hat the leadershlp Is seek­ing
t.he COW"l5e which accords v.ith t.he
Senate's desires.
The leadership has Its own estlma.te ot
these desires, but It Is not enough In a
predicament of this complexity. The
leadership !eels the need to test these
various Senate currents in votes and ask$
for the Senate's cooperation to the end
that these tests may be forthcoming
without further aimless delay.
Accordingly, the leadership hereby
serves notice that on this Friday It wlll
move for a vote In the Senate In an en­tirely
orderly although somewhat un­usual
fashion. The motion which the
leadership wlll offer at that time w1ll not
be debatable. It w111 be a move to table
the leadership's own pending motion to
take up 14(b) and the leadership will
then vote against the tabling motion It
offers.
The leadership is under no 1lluslon that
this course will resolve the matter. It
w1ll be satisfied It It unravels the outer
strings. It Is hopeful only that the vote
w1ll be an honest expression of the atti­tudes
of Members on the motion offered
and, hence, provide some measure of
guidance as to the direction In which the
Senate, as a whole, desires to move.
All Members on both sides of the aisle
are now on notice o! the leadership's In­tentions.
I would hope and expect that
Members will be present not only for the
vote on Friday but for all quorum calls
during the next few days to the end that
the debate on the pending question may
proceed without delay. And may I say,
in this connection and In all frankness,
that the presence or absence o! Members
Is in Itself to some extent indicative of
the Senate's desires.
All Members on this side of the aisle,
without exception, have already been
notified by wire to anticipate quorum
calls and votes during this week and be­yond.
I reiterate that special notice at
this time. I would urge all Democratic
Members to stay In this city, to return to
It If they are away and to cancel travel
plans until further notice.
The leadership is hopeful of the con­cun
·ence of the minority leader in seek­ing
to bring the Senate In no later than
11 a.m. for the balance of the week.
That will facilitate the clearance of other
matters of business. It w1ll also serve
to accommodate Senators--most of
whom, I believe, are on his side of the
aisle who wish to address themselves to
this critical pending question, not of the
Issue of repeal of 14(b) Itself but of
whether or not to proceed to consider it.
In closing, I can only say that I have
been asked countless times in recent
days, by Members and by the press, these
questions: When wUl the Senate ad­Journ?
And, what will happen to 14(b)?
As a Senator from Montana, I have no
difficulty in answering these questions for
myself. I should like to see 14(b) re­pealed
and the sooner the better. And
I should like to see the Senate adjourn,
thereafter, and the sooner the better.
But as maJority leader, I am con­strained
to point out that insofar as the
Senate as a whole. is conceiTh.-d only the
Senate as a whole can answer.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

For additional information about the collections held by the Archives and Special Collections at the University of Montana--Missoula, please visit the web site: http://www.lib.umt.edu/asc. To suggest a keyword or share what you might know about this item, email: library.archives@umontana.edu.

Transcript

October 11, 1965
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD (D. , MONTANA) COPY
Mr. President:
It is possible, as some have contended, that Friday ' s vote was
rendered meaningless by its unanimity. Insofar as the Majority Leader is
concerned, he prefers to believe that the Senate does not deliberately engage
in meaningless gestures. On Friday, the Senate was provided with an oppor-tunity
to get off this issue of 14-B by a simple tabling motion. The Senate
chose not to put it aside . And it chose not to do so by unanimous vote .
The Majority Leader takes Friday's vote at face value . Insofar as
the Majority Leader is concerned, therefore, that vote was, in no sense,
without meaning . On the contrary, it has been immensely helpful and the
Leadership is most appreciative .
In all frankness, if the motion to table had carried on last Friday,
the Majority Leader was prepared to recommend immediately that the Senate pass
over this issue for the session . On the other hand, if the motion to table
had been defeated by a slim majority, the Senate would have remained in a
difficult predicament. The Majority Leader would have been hard-pressed to
decide whether the margin against tabling warranted an effort to invoke
cloture on a simple procedural question of whether the Senate would take up
H.R. 77.
But the vote on Friday was such as to resolve all doubts on the
matter insof ar as the Majority Leader was concerned. Indeed, when unanimity
against tabling was indicated in the early stages of the tally, the Majority
Leader drew from his pocket a cloture petition. The petition had been
prepared in advance but was unsigned because, I confess, that until that moment
I did not quite know what to do with i t . Once the vote began to be recorded,
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
- 2 -
however, it was clear what had to oe aone with it. The petition was circulated
among the members ~hile the vote was in process and, before the tally was
complete, the requisite signatures had been obtained.
It was possible, therefore, for the Majority Leader to move without
waste of time at the conclusion of the tally to give substance to the
overwhelming, indeed, unanimously indicated inclination of the Senate, as
expressed in the vote against the motion to table .
The Senate, in effect, had said -- indeed the Minority Leader did
say it -- that it did not want to leave this issue. So, in accommodation, the
Majority Leader offered the petition for cloture . He offered it, in the first
place , to make sure that he had heard correctly and, secondly, to act on the
Senate ' s indicated wish in the only procedural way which is believed practical
at this time .
The nature of the predicament and the need for a cloture motion
become clear in the light of the proceedings on the floor during the last two
weeks . Ten days is a lavish and wasteful expenditure of the Senate ' s limited
floor time on any simple procedural question. Indeed, during this session of
Congress many complex pieces of legislation have been completely disposed of in
a fraction of that time . The Voting Rights Act of 1965, for example, was both
novel and controversial; yet the motion to proceed to its consideration was
passed by the Senate in less than a minute . Similar swift treatment was given
to the procedural question of taking up the proposed Constitutional Amendments
on Reapportionment and on Presidential Inability. The same is true for
Appalachia, Poverty and Aid to Education, to name but a few. That is part of
the background for the vote which is about to be taken . Here is the rest.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
- 3 -
On October 1, ten days ago, the Majority Leader moved that the Senate
turn to consideration of H.R. 77. It was an entirely orderly and routine
procedural motion . The bill, itself, had passed the House . It had been
considered at length by the appropriate Senate Committee and reported
favorably . It had been on the Legislative Calendar for a month . What was
there to debate on the question of taking up this measure? Whether it was too
late i n the session for a major and controversial issue of this kind? Whether
the Senate should take up some other bill first? Whether the Senate should
adjourn? These, indeed, would have been legitimate matters to discuss in an
orderly fashion prior to a vote on the motion to take up H.R. 77; an hour or so
might have reasonably been consumed in the process . But these matters were not
discussed at all, except as they were mentioned by the Majority Leader on Monday.
On the contrary, a long and continuing tirade on the evils which would attend
the repeal of 14-B was launched even though the Senate had not yet decided to
consider H.R. 77.
I submit that that is not useful and pointed debate . That is an
unconscionable delay on a procedural question for the purpose of obfuscating the
issue of substance . If it is not a filibuster, it is, to say the least, a
pre-filibuster.
And so, on October 5, five days ago, the Leadership indicated its
concern to the Senate over the delay in reaching a decision on the simple
procedural question of taking up 14-B. At that time, the Senate was asked, via
the tabling motion, to give the Leadership some guidance as to its wish on the
sole question of taking up 14-B. The Majority Leader was at great pains to
point out that what was involved was in no way a test of sentiment on the issue
of 14-B itself .
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
- 4 -
Therefore) on Friday) the distinguished Minority Leader whose own
position against repeal of 14-B is no secret) urged defeat of the tabling
motion) so that the matter would not be put aside. And the Majority Leader)
whose own position in favor of repeal of 14-B is no secret) urged defeat of
the motion to table so that the matter could be moved forward in an orderly
fashion. The Senate responded magnificently to the appeal of the joint
Leadership .
In the vote which is about to be taken) the Senate will be able to
make clear that it does not toyJ as some have suggested) with the hopes of
millions of Americans who are members of the great labor unions of the nation.
The Senate can make clear thatJ regardless of how it may feel on the issue of
14-B itself) it does not make light of their sincere petition by dabbling in
parliamentary parlor games . The Senate can make clear that Labor is entitled
to a fair and decent consideration of an issue of great importance in labor­management
relations duly and properly brought before the SenateJ even as
corporations areJ even as the aged and the poverty-stricken areJ even as
immigrants are and even as racial minorities are.
The Senate can make this clearJ in the only way that it can be made
clear at the present time) in the judgment of the Majority Leader) by voting to
invoke cloture on the simple procedural motion of taking up H.R. 77.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
- 5 -
I stress again that this vote will not~ any more than the motion to
table on Friday~ bind anyone for or against repeal of 14-B. What it will do
and let there be no doubt -- is to determine whether or not the Senate means to
get down to business on the issue of 14-B itself or to pass over it. On the
basis of the performance of the past days~ the Majority Leader~ in all
frankness~ sees no other rational way at this time in which this point can be
nailed down except via the path of cloture on the single issue of whether or
not to proceed to consider H.R. 77•
So~ Mr. President~ at one o'clock~ thanks to Rule 22~ and the
cooperation of the distinguished Minority Leader on Friday~ a significant
moment of truth will have arrived for the Senate.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana
United States
of America
«rongr£ssionat REcord
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 89th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
Vol. 111 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1965 No. 184
REPEAL OF SECTION 14 (b) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, AS AMENDED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question Is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANS­FIELD]
to proceed to the consideration
of H.R. 77, tJ repeal section 14(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President on
October 1, I sent the following teleg~am
to all Democratic Senators:
Active consideration of 14(b) has com­menced.
Procedural d1IDcultles anticipated.
Votes at any time. All Members should be
available henceforth for quorum calls and
votes.
Mr. President, this has been my re­quest
to all Democratic Senators. Be­cause
of extraordinary circumstances I
told two Senators who called me that in
~Y opinion, they need not return to the
c1ty on Monday, but that from then on
they should be here.
Mr. President, I am sending today a
second telegram to all Members on the
Democratic side of the aisle, urging them
to remain in the Senate or to return here
as the case may be, to cancel engage~
ments and plans, in order to be available
for quorum calls or votes, until the pres­ent
situation is clarified.
!-fr. President, the leadership has cer­tam
responsibilities for maintaining an
ord':rly legislative program during the
sess10ns of the Senate. It also has some
responsibility for bringing the session to
an orderly close. I should like, there­fore,
to set forth certain observations on
the situation which confronts the Sen­ate
with respect to 14(b). It is necessary
to do so In order to provide some under­standing
of the leadership's predicament.
Insofar as the administration Is con­c~
rn~ in this matter of 14(b), its posi­tion
1S clear. President Johnson upholds
fully the Democratic Party platform of
1964 which calls for the repeal of sec­tio~
14 (b) . He has asked the Congress
agam and agam to repeal section 14(b).
He has expressed approval of the House
passage of H.R. 77 to repeal section
14 (b) . He would like to see the Senate
act to repeal section 14(b). He stands
ready now to sign a bill for the repeal
of 14Cb> .
Senate
In short, we know where the President
stands on 14(b). We know where the
House stands. What remains to be de­termined
is where the Senate stands.
So the responsibility for what tran­spires
with respect to 14(b), at this point,
rests solely with the &mate. The Presi­dent
understands · the constitutional de­marcation
as between the responsibility
of the Senate and the responsibility of
the executive branch. He has honored
It In the past. He will honor It In this
situation.
I would hope and expect that the Sen­ate
will be equally mindful of it. I would
hope that Members will recognize and
accept fully the responsibility which that
demarcation lodges in the Senate at this
time with respect to 14(b).
Speaking for myself, let me say that
as a Senator of the United States from
Montana, which I am before all else, I
am satisfied that section 14(b) should
be repealed. The issues of 14(b) have
been thoroughly examined in the House,
In the appropriate Senate committee and
in the press. H.R. 77, as properly re­ported
by a Senate committee, has been
on the calendar for a month. I am ready
to vote for repeal. I am ready to vote for
repeal now, today, or at any time a vote
can be had.
In all frankness, I see no point or need
for a prolonged discussion of this mat­ter
on the Senate floor. But as majority
leader, I know very well that others do
not see the matter In qulte the same light.
Some, indeed, would like to talk the ques­tion
of 14(b) to death. Let us be under
no illusions as to what we are about. Call
It educational debate. Call it prolonged
discussion. Call it a filibuster. What­ever
It is called, the facts are the same.
The opposition to repeal 14(b) is such
and tl1e rules of the Senate are such, that
a final disposition of 14(b) can be de­layed
for weeks or months. It can be so
delayed unless, not a simple majority
but a preponderant majority of the Sen­ate
decides otherwise. That is the reality
and there is no point in blinking at it.
Ten-hour sessions; twelve-hour ses­sions;
twenty-four-hour sessions will not
change the reality. There are no short
cuts which will change it. There are no
procedural tricks which will change it.
Only the presence of Members and their
votes will change it.
The leadership can state flatly, there­fore,
that there w111 be no mock trial of
this question by physical endurance.
There Wlll be no pajama sessions of the
Senate. The leadership did not resort to
t~ose exercises In futility during the civil
nghts debate, the voting rights blll the.
reapp~rtionment bill, the Telstar debate,
or dunng any of a number of other con­troversies
which have come before the
Senate in recent years. It will not resort
to them on this issue.
In th~ first place the leadership will
not subJect a Senate of extraordinary
dedication such as this one has been to
that sort of meaningless ·and demeaning
ordeal, at the end of 9 months of ex­tremely
fmitful work for the benefit of
the entire Nation. In the second place
the leadership, which seeks passage of re­peal
of 14(b) as soon as It is passible w1ll
not, in that fashion, aid further the pro­ponents
of delay. For that 1n the end in
what a trial by physical ~ndurance ~ill
do.
The leadership will proceed in an or­derly
fashion in an effort to steer the
Senate out o! this predicament. As
usual, however, the leadership can only
propose; in the end It is the Senate which
w1ll dispose.
The leadership, for example, proposed
the other day when It asked the Senate
to proceed at once to the consideration o! repeal of 14(b)-a procedural propo­Sition
which Is normally concluded on the
floor of the Senate in a matter of seconds.
Some Members were prepared so to pro­ceed.
Others were not. And the leader­ship
is still waiting for the Senate to dis­pose
of this simple procedural matter.
I say that not in criticism but merely to
poln_t up the reality of the predicament.
ObVIously, it is not so simple a matter of
whether the Senate is prepared to decide
to repeal or not to repeal section 14(b)
That there is more Involved here u;
clearly Indicated by this continuing delay.
There are other currents running in the
Senate In addition to this issue. There
is the question of whether or not an­other
time would be more appropriate for
a consideration of 14(b). There Is the
question of the relative weight to be given
this Issue of 14 t.hat the leadershlp Is seek­ing
t.he COW"l5e which accords v.ith t.he
Senate's desires.
The leadership has Its own estlma.te ot
these desires, but It Is not enough In a
predicament of this complexity. The
leadership !eels the need to test these
various Senate currents in votes and ask$
for the Senate's cooperation to the end
that these tests may be forthcoming
without further aimless delay.
Accordingly, the leadership hereby
serves notice that on this Friday It wlll
move for a vote In the Senate In an en­tirely
orderly although somewhat un­usual
fashion. The motion which the
leadership wlll offer at that time w1ll not
be debatable. It w111 be a move to table
the leadership's own pending motion to
take up 14(b) and the leadership will
then vote against the tabling motion It
offers.
The leadership is under no 1lluslon that
this course will resolve the matter. It
w1ll be satisfied It It unravels the outer
strings. It Is hopeful only that the vote
w1ll be an honest expression of the atti­tudes
of Members on the motion offered
and, hence, provide some measure of
guidance as to the direction In which the
Senate, as a whole, desires to move.
All Members on both sides of the aisle
are now on notice o! the leadership's In­tentions.
I would hope and expect that
Members will be present not only for the
vote on Friday but for all quorum calls
during the next few days to the end that
the debate on the pending question may
proceed without delay. And may I say,
in this connection and In all frankness,
that the presence or absence o! Members
Is in Itself to some extent indicative of
the Senate's desires.
All Members on this side of the aisle,
without exception, have already been
notified by wire to anticipate quorum
calls and votes during this week and be­yond.
I reiterate that special notice at
this time. I would urge all Democratic
Members to stay In this city, to return to
It If they are away and to cancel travel
plans until further notice.
The leadership is hopeful of the con­cun
·ence of the minority leader in seek­ing
to bring the Senate In no later than
11 a.m. for the balance of the week.
That will facilitate the clearance of other
matters of business. It w1ll also serve
to accommodate Senators--most of
whom, I believe, are on his side of the
aisle who wish to address themselves to
this critical pending question, not of the
Issue of repeal of 14(b) Itself but of
whether or not to proceed to consider it.
In closing, I can only say that I have
been asked countless times in recent
days, by Members and by the press, these
questions: When wUl the Senate ad­Journ?
And, what will happen to 14(b)?
As a Senator from Montana, I have no
difficulty in answering these questions for
myself. I should like to see 14(b) re­pealed
and the sooner the better. And
I should like to see the Senate adjourn,
thereafter, and the sooner the better.
But as maJority leader, I am con­strained
to point out that insofar as the
Senate as a whole. is conceiTh.-d only the
Senate as a whole can answer.
Mike Mansfield Papers, Series 21, Box 43, Folder 20, Mansfield Library, University of Montana